[blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Guthrie]

[richard.hills]
> Preventing Insufficient Bid
> 
> The following question was referred to the National
> Authority at the instigation of Laurie Kelso.
> 
>   Does the National Authority have an opinion on the
>   following two scenarios:
> 
>   a) In a slam investigation auction (using written
>   bidding) a player bids 5NT (king ask) and as his
>   partner begins to write down "5" he calls out "stop",
>   thus preventing partner from making an insufficient
>   bid.
> 
>   b) The dealer (using bidding boxes) sees his partner
>   begin to remove a bid (not a green "pass" card) from
>   the box, where upon he reaches across and prevents his
>   partner from getting the bidding cards any more than
>   half-way out of the box. (Please assume that the
>   intervention occurred before the point where
>   regulation defines the partner's action as a call).
> 
>   Are the above actions permitted or not permitted
>   (legal or illegal)?

[nige1]
IMO a moot point. The law says you can prevent an infraction;
but...

[A] Your communication with partner is about a call or play but
itself is neither call nor play. Is such information authorised,
unless specifically permitted?

[B] IMO, the infraction is under way. For example, how should the 
director rule when...
(i) The last bid was "5H", and partner starts to write "5D".
You manage to knock the pen from partner's hand just before he
completes the "D"?
(ii) You are dealer but you see partner scrabbling in the bidding
box. You succeed in karate chopping the cards and box to the floor
before partner can commit himself?
(iii) You are dummy and declarer shows out in a suit. You ask
"having none". Partner insists he has "None". You are *sure* he
has made a mistake. May you ask a kibitzer or scorer or director
to check partner's hand?

[C] Does the ABF interpretation favour agile youngsters with
quick reaction times?

[D] Some players assiduously study the expressions and mannerisms
of partner and opponents. Do law-makers really want to go out
of their way to reward and encourage such behaviour?

[E] Some directors may relish the prospect of exercising more 
"subjective judgement" ... but should law-makers have any regard
for poor players who inevitably will have to put up with more 
inconsistent rulings on identical facts?